[Top] [All Lists]

Re: New Sieve extension "refuse" proposal - draft-elvey-refuse-sieve-01h

2004-02-18 09:03:16

Hi Matthew,

--On Wednesday, February 18, 2004 6:40 AM -0800 "Matthew Elvey (FM)" <matthew(_at_)elvey(_dot_)fastmail(_dot_)fm> wrote:

|> Anyway, you could punt and say that a refuse implementation should use
|> SMTP/LMTP rejection _where_possible_, and allow an implementation to
|> treat refuse as reject if the implementation can't do anything else.
| I very much want the user to be able to know as conclusively as possible
| that if "refuse" is supported, then they will be refusing mail at SMTP
| time.

Frankly I doubt that the 'average' user will understand the distinction between refuse and reject - 'power' users will. I would likely expect that reject vs refuse is something that will be decided by site admins as a matter of policy and they would configure their sieve web-frontends (or other script generation tools) to use one or the other as appropriate with just a single UI widget representing a 'reject' type action that the user can pick.

Perhaps the following would be better:

A single new command 'refuse' that takes various arguments, the first of which can be one of:

'mdn'   - send an mdn rejection with supplied descriptive text
'dsn'   - send a dsn rejection with supplied descriptive text
'smtp5' - send an smtp permanent failure - ascii text provided is sent with smtp response 'smtp4' - send an smtp temporary failure - ascii text provided is sent with smtp response
'default'   - one of the above as a defined by site policy.

The only problem with this is knowing how to deal with the text for the 'default' argument - for mdn/dsn it can be utf8, but for smtp it can only be ascii. Perhaps 'default' should take two strings - one utf8 one ascii - but that is ugly!

Cyrus Daboo